Full Breakdown
Record-Breaking Lutetium Atomic Clock Could Redefine the Second
By Drooid · · How we work
The Breakthrough Device
Physicists at the Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) of the National University of Singapore have unveiled an atomic clock that uses the vibration of lutetium-176 atoms. The team published their results in *Nature* in September, describing a device that achieves accuracy to 19 decimal places—about a 41 % improvement over the previous record holder. The clock’s design incorporates a technique called hyperfine averaging, which suppresses environmental influences such as magnetic fields and temperature fluctuations.
Why It Beats Prior Standards
Since 1968 the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) has defined the second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation from the cesium-133 atom. Subsequent clocks have employed ytterbium, strontium and other elements, but they remain vulnerable to minute temperature shifts, magnetic variations and gravitational effects. By contrast, lutetium-176 maintains stable oscillations even when external temperature swings by five degrees, allowing the clock to operate accurately across a wide range of environments.
Quantitative Performance
The new clock’s 19-decimal-place precision means it would require more than 260 billion years to accumulate a one-second error. For perspective, a typical mechanical or automatic watch can lose up to 10 seconds per day, amounting to roughly 95 trillion seconds over the same interval. The BIPM has indicated that it may revise the definition of the second in 2030, and researchers consider lutetium the leading candidate for that future standard.
Official Outlook
The BIPM is expected to adopt a redefinition of the second in 2030 based on the performance of modern atomic clocks. Barrett’s laboratory views lutetium as the front-runner for this role, noting that the clock could also enable tests of whether fundamental constants—such as the gravitational constant G—remain truly constant over time.
Verbatim Quotes
- “There is some speculation that fundamental constants may actually be changing,” — Murray Barrett